Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-NRA

Newly-elected Democratic Senator Heidi Heitkamp, a card-carrying member of the NRA, came to the US Senate already bought-and-sold by the NRA. And she proved her value by dutifully repeating clear NRA talking points on ABC’s THIS WEEK this past Sunday:

Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D, told me this morning on “This Week” that while all options should be on the table to address gun violence, President Obama’s reported plans to curb shootings are ”way in extreme” when I pressed her this morning on the kinds on measures she could potentially support.

“I think you need to put everything on the table, but what I hear from the administration – and if the Washington Post is to be believed – that’s way, way in extreme of what I think is necessary or even should be talked about. And it’s not going to pass,” said Heitkamp, a member of the National Rifle Association.

Heitkamp, who has an “A” rating from the NRA and was elected in a state that Gov. Mitt Romney won by nearly 20 points, stressed the importance of addressing mental health as part of the effort to curb violent shootings.

“Let’s start addressing the problem. And to me, one of the issues that I think comes, screams out of this is the issue of mental health and the care for the mentally ill in our country, especially the dangerously mentally ill,” she said. “And, so, we need to have a broad discussion before we start talking about gun control.”

Ooh, Obama is so extreme!

Actually, not so much, Senator Heitkamp. What’s “extreme” is a woman who is only days into her new job and is already proving just how far up the NRA’s butt she really is. Folks, you want to see Washington corruption in action, look no further than Heidi Heitkmap, D-NRA. She’s the best gun nut money can buy. You’ve heard of “hired guns”? Meet a “hired gun-nut.”

Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-NRA)The best hired gun nut money can buy.

Mental health is the problem? Well, then here’s a crazy idea, Senator – How about we not only try to get the crazy people help, but we also stop making it so easy for the crazy people to get guns in the first place! The guy took his mom’s legal guns and killed a bunch of six and seven year olds. Do you even care about that, Senator? You’ve got two kids. If someone shot each of them three times and left them for dead, would your first impulse be to call the NRA and then regurgitate their talking points about a “broad discussion” in an effort to kill any efforts for real reform? Because that’s obviously what you did, Senator Heitkamp. You’re running interference for the very people who helped make these murders possible in the first place. Merry Christmas!

Heidi Heitkamp’s Definition of a Broad Discussion

The funny thing about broad discussions, Senator, is that they’re really hard to have when you’re dead.

They’re also hard to have when you tell one side in the discussion that they’re not even permitted to propose anything you don’t like.

But of course, Heidi Heitkamp has no intention of having a broad conversation about gun violence. She said outright in the ABC interview that not only is she opposed to the President’s gun proposals, but she even objects to even discussing them at all. That’s what she said. They shouldn’t even be talked about.

HEITKAMP: We all need to stop talking in ultimatums and say only these — you know, narrowing the debate, put everything on the table, start working together, that’s what you do in America in every small town and every business in America. You don’t rule out anything until you’ve actually had a dialogue….

And so we need to have a broad discussion before we start talking about gun control.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, the White House is talking about that, but are you willing to talk about gun control, as well?

HEITKAMP: Well, I think you need to put everything on the table, but what I hear from the administration — and if the Washington Post is to be believed — that’s way — way in extreme of what I think is necessary or even should be talked about.

Not even talked about? Wow.

Note first that Heitkamp is clearly parroting the NRA’s “discussion” and “conversation” talking points. Second, note how Heitkamp goes in one sentence from talking about a broad conversation in which nothing is ruled out and everything is put on the table, to then saying, literally in the same sentence, that we shouldn’t even talk about the White House’s proposals.

Is that how North Dakotans do it in their small towns, Senator Heitkamp? They call for a discussion in which they get to say whatever they want and then tell everyone else to STFU?

So, Heidi Heitkamp is so extreme that she’s not even in favor of a broad conversation, which itself is intended to kill any effort to move any legislation.

Leave Senator Heitkamp a Message on Facebook and Twitter

Perhaps Democrats should pay Senator Heitkamp a virtual visit on her Facebook page and her Twitter account @Heidi4ND and start having that broad discussion about extremism and mental illness. Because Senator Heitkamp is nuts if she thinks Demorats are going to let her get away with being some NRA stooge day one in office. If she wants to be the next Joe Lieberman, she’ll be treated like the next Joe Lieberman. Being a Democratic pariah is a lonely place your first day on the job.

John AravosisFollow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. John's article archive.

Who the hell does this jack off think he is, I did not vote for Heidi but I give her credit for standing up for what the people of the Great state of North Dakota hold sacred. We must be doing somthing right take a look at our statistic and compare to any state you want, I think you will find we stack up very well. Heidi is not representing you she is representing us the citizens of North Dakota. We are very independent and conservative we take care of ourselves, we believe in God, family, friends, the constitution, the bill of rights, ect, ect,. One thing is certain if they come for our guns there will be a big problem. By the way I suppose you believe in abortion right thought so, I have you pegged. You sir are nothing more than a hack get a real job and pull the rope with the rest of us true Americans.

I find it hard to believe that “guns” are the real problem. Gun ownership has been central to our American heritage since the beginning, yet it was unheard of until recent years that someone would go into a school and shoot children. Should we not ask what has changed?

What a child… what is with the pathetically immature level that so many of public discussions sink to these days? Mr. Aravosis, you have no right to claim the Senator “doesn’t even care” about dead children, or that she has been bought by the NRA unless you can show proof of that. And talk about straw man arguments… you spend 6 paragraphs hysterically claiming she is trying to tell “everyone else to STFU” and control their speech. Maybe she has a personal opinion. Maybe she just doesn’t want to begin the discussion with the question, “so which weapons do we ban?” Perhaps the senator wants to defend a point of view that she thinks is going to get lost in all the “Do something now!!” emotion surrounding this case.

That this writer is a “frequent TV pundit” is sad. He has a degree in rhetoric? Seriously?? Did his degree help him produce this gem, where he accuses the NRA of being “the people who helped make these murders possible”? This is the kind of shrieking, irrational argument that pro-lifers use when they accuse pro-choice people of being “baby killlers.” For some reason I thought our side was better than that. Guess not. Listen up, everyone, gun owners are not monsters who love the thought of people getting shot. They are overwhelmingly responsible people who believe that guns are a tool to be used in self defense. You may disagree with them, but that is no excuse to vilify them.

For what it’s worth, I’m a liberal/progressive who usually votes Democrat, but I don’t choose my viewpoints based on the party line and I am pro-2nd ammendment even though I am not a big fan of guns. Some of us feel that personal liberty means that you should be free to defend yourself, with guns if you so choose, provided you are a mentally competent, law-abiding person. Neither of which applies to the shooters in these types of crimes. Senator Heitkamp seems refreshingly willing to disagree with most of her party, on a matter of principle and not just self-interest. Not like slimy Lieberman, as far as I can tell. I don’t know much about her yet, but I like what I’ve read so far. Others may not like her at all – and I can accept that. But I am disgusted by these O’Reilly-worthy tactics.

I know Senator Heidi Heitkamp and after visiting with her on several occaisions, I find her friendly, humble, receptive and with loads of common sense. Besides that, she’s no dummy. She knows there are already millions of semi-automatic weapons across the American landscape and that a ban from here forth would have a very minimal impact on the wrong people getting their hands on these types of weapons. She is right in focusing on the mentally ill or unstable who seem to be committing these horrible crimes.

I did learn one thing from this piece by John Aravosis though. His writing is crude, rude, ultra-devisive and a type that I shall never waste my time reading again.

You can not talk sense with straight up anti gun nuts the gun show loop hole is wack argument. Banning semi auto weapons is not going to happen. The problem is gangs and criminals not the gun. 20000 gun laws but that next one is magic enforce the laws we have now

Here we go again. Another right wing conservative dressed in democratic clothing. As a progressive I would rather have a rabid conservative republican represent N.D. than a blue dog democrat. At least I would know where he/she stands on issues. My enthusiasm for Hietkamp’s victory was as short lived as her democratic bona fides. NEXT

Becca, isn’t it always the so ‘sincere’ false equivalency that is the hardest to rebut? ie. Because dogs are not cats, the Simpson-Bowles findings will lead to the lowered cost of kibble and thus low income seniors will be able to afford more food.

also, most laws are stupid. There is no difference between a deer rifle (say a 30-06 with a scope) a weapon you can even get a permit for in the UK with some trouble and a sniper rifle save maybe a flash hider which in terms of pubic safety risk is none.

“riot” shotguns are just the same as sporting shotguns except they are a bit shorter and some have a longer tube, “assault” rifles are common and effective for vermin control and hunting (in 5.56 and 7.62×39) and the difference between say whats legal here in California as a sporting rifle and a scary “assault” rifle in terms of public safety is none.

Limiting magazine size is also stupid. Tens of millions of people use semi auto pistols like the .45 and 9mm with 8 round magazines and many more with 10 and 15 round ones for self defence.

The time to change a magazine is about 2 seconds with practice (I’ve dome it at the range BTW in 4 and I am slow and careful not damage the magazine) and given that people can make magazines very easily (its a box and a spring really that’s it) none of the public safety measures will matter a lick.

Laws like this are collective punishment for law abiding people and more importantly, create political problems fro little or no gain. Don’t let your fear or desire to do good rule you.

Also a last thing, the gun culture has changed. In the past it was pretty easy to peel off farmers and hunters (the gun people call them Fudd’s) for whatever measure they want.

This is not the case anymore, almost all guns bought today are for a perceived need for self protection. People rightly look at the economy. the amazing spike in crime and poverty and our crumbling infrastructure not to mention the flagrant lawlessness of both parties and figure they’ll need a gun. Probably will at the rate we are going.

Its a totally different political ecosystem out there and stupidity makes things worse.

Also a last point, somebody needs to check Obama if he thinks he is going to do too much gun control by executive order. With millions of rifles sold, he is risking far too much for too little gain. Those salacious pictures comparing him to Stalin and Hitler are how exactly millions and millions of people are going to feel if he overreaches. same as you would is a President decided to make the pill the same as Heroin (which he could by the same logic) or abortion , conspiracy to violate rights (which is a capital offence) and ignore established law as most proposals (including Clinton’s shotgun stunt in the 90’s) do. Its wrong and dangerous

You need to understand how these people think and feel, and not with some snark about them being crazy. They’ll react to some proposals the way you would to the FDA seizing all birth control pills by executive order, as illegitimate and tyrannical. Its a rational decision based on a different learned interpretation of the role of the US state

The risk here is at best gridlock, in the middle voting in an aggressive reactionary wiling to rule by executive decree (sauce for goose, sauce for the gander) and at worse, if they figure elections don’t work an outright insurgency, possibly numbering in the hundreds of thousands or even millions.

That may be a bluff, it might not but I suspect Mubarak and Al Assad (alright he is still clinging) and Hussein and Qaddafi all figured they had it sewn up as did a lot of other people . And no I am not comparing Obama to any of these guys, but the guys will and they might act accordingly.

If guns are that big an issue, and they really aren’t you need to be smarter and change America so that people don’t want them so much rather than bleating “I am going to use government guns to disarm you because I don’t trust you” which leads to more distrust and as I said with government basically utterly corrupt (quick how many Bankers are in jail?) is downright stupid as well.

I’m presuming that with sensible gun control laws, a criminal or crazy person will have to work hard to get an illegal assault rifle or mega-capacity clip or thousands of rounds of ammo — whereas now, the latter two can be bought online easily and the former can often be gotten without a background check or waiting period.

We can never be 100% safe. But that doesn’t mean because we want law-abiding people to be able to purchase and own firearms that we have make it ridiculously easy for crazies and criminals to get them, too, which is the current status quo.

If your bedside / blogside manner were the same with him as with me I am shocked SHOCKED I say! that Timothy McVeigh didn’t respond more favorably to you.

I neither waved my gun in your face nor threatened the Government with it (/them.) I told you how inappropriate it was to indescrimitatley casually and regularly use the term “gun nut” and you called me a pedophile.

The gentleman made a very reasonable post. Minimizing the damage crazy people can do is really the only practical option at this point. Convincing the non-crazy gun nuts that their own interests aren’t threatened will turn some of them into allies.

And as a quick aside, I use the term “gun nuts” to cover a very wide spectrum. Lots of people like to punch holes in paper targets, and dream of driving tacks at 300 yards. They’re not a problem. Lots more like to go out hunting for trophies and food. THEY’RE not a problem. And I’d guess the most common type of firearm owner wants to protect his home from criminal intruders. There is a potential in all of the above for small local tragedies. A guy shooting at the paper target can overshoot and hurt/kill somebody a mile away. The hunter may shoot another guy after the same game animal. And the homeowner may mistake a family member for a housebreaker. Even single shot weapons can do those things. But it’s very hard to do a mass murder with guns which can’t fire many shots without reloading. So when I call the above types “gun nuts” I don’t mean to imply they’re crazy. Enthusiasts, hobbyists, prudent homeowners – but not crazy.

If the larger clips are banned, existing ones cannot be grandfathered! And it wouldn’t be fair to simply tell citizens they’ve got to turn in the old ones without compensation. No, there must be funds available for the manufacture of factory replacements of the old ones. You turn in a ten round magazine, and get a 3 round one to replace it. Genuine Remington, or whatever. It won’t be a cheap program, but so what!

The criminals will do what they please, but I figure a properly written law will make it in their best interests to ditch the big magazines. If I’m a teller at a bank, I’m going to be quite as intimidated by a single shot pistol as by a umpteen round automatic. Possession of an outlawed device would add many years to their jail sentence – with no parole for those particular years.

Regarding the gun shows and the background checks, I’d propose doing away with all restrictions and regulations for the shows and checks for single shots and double barreled weapons. If a guy buys a 20 gauge to kill his wife, he’s simply stupid, for he could just as easily kill her with an iron pipe while she’s sleeping.

Concentrate on the mass murder weapons, and we might get some allies from the non-crazy parts of the gun owner crowd.

You had me until the last paragraph…you are presuming that the criminal is going to follow the law and not used banned or illegal items. Ten 10 round magazines is still 100 rounds. The issue of reloading is negligent.

I can respect your view. Please remember though, that the 2nd amendment was intended to allow for the very thing you are concerned with. The problem with that idea is that their reasons are stupid (lost the election, Obama is black etc.). The Amendment was intended for real reasons.

Well, speaking only for myself, I don’t like being lumped in with whatever image everyone has (and everyone has their own) of a “gun nut”. And lets be honest, when they are saying it, they are comparing us to these shooters. I take great offense to that for a number of reasons, but not the least of which is that I am a law abiding citizen who happens to have a lot of experience with guns (been in law enforcement for over 20 years), law and responsibility. I would love to have a reasoned discussion of this issue, but if you look around, its pretty one-sided with the site owner being one of the worst offenders at lumping everyone he disagrees with into one group.

Well, I would agree with you that its insane, but remember that the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was to allow for the very thing you point out. The founding fathers wanted us to be able to take up arms against our government should it be required (for real reasons, not Glen Beck reasons).

1. How will that prevent gun deaths?
2. We already have laws against illegal gun ownership. Felons, for instance, cannot own guns.
3. Why? And who gets to determine what rapid fire is? Do you mean fully automatic weapons or semi-automatic weapons?
4. Again, why? I have a .22 rifle in my closet that comes with a 10 round magazine. Whats the difference between two additional rounds?

Can you please give some examples of the legislation that is not designed to work? The gun show “loophole”, I believe, is more about the federal government regulating interstate commerce. That said, I would love to see the instant background checks be part of any and all gun shows. Also, private ownership of guns is in the tens of millions. What about those?

I personally have no interest in totally outlawing the ownership of firearms — which in your analogy is the same thing as being ardently anti-abortion. In fact, very few gun control advocates would propose complete confiscation and outlawing of citizens owning guns.

I’ve been a hunter and target shooter for many years. There are guns well-suited to either of those activities, and neither of them requires an extended clip or ammunition drum containing 100+ rounds. There is no rational reason why a hunter or target shooter needs a military-grade M107 sniper rifle, because their sole designed use is to kill people. Same thing with semi-automatic assault rifles; shoot a deer with a dozen rounds and you’ll about ruin the meat. There are rifles far better suited to the purpose of hunting deer, such as the Remington 798 bolt-action. And honestly? I’ve wondered if outside of military and law-enforcement use, there’s any real need for semi-automatics — both rifles and handguns. And let’s not confuse the desire to shoot an entire clip in less than five seconds with the actual civilian need to do so.

The trouble is when we say “there ought to be background checks before sale, with no gun-show or private sale loopholes, no omission-riddled databases because individual states have decided not to bother reporting their criminals and mentally ill to the FBI”, this is nothing at all like trying to ban abortion. Or when we say “Fine, it should be legal to own hunting and target weapons…but people don’t need assault or sniper rifles and they sure as heck don’t need clips that hold hundreds of rounds”, this isn’t the same as the anti-abortion extremists who would ban all forms of contraception because it might stop a fertlized egg from implanting, or stop an egg from being fertilized in the first place.

Yet this is what happens when we suggest there are some types of guns and gun accessories that have no place in civilian hands. We’re accused of being unreasonable extremists who want to ban all firearms, period. Nothing could be further from the truth, for most of us.

And wanting SOME gun control legislation isn’t even on the same planet as wanting to ban all guns — yet this is how even modest restrictions, like the recently expired assault rifle ban, are painted by the “no limits” pro-gun crowd.

What we want is for guns to be kept out of the hands of criminals and crazies, and since this cannot be guaranteed, we’d at least like it to be possible to minimize the damage when the inevitable happens. It’s far easier to try to stop someone who has only one gun and needs to reload after six shots than someone who has half a dozen, some equipped with 100-round ammo drums and who can kill as fast as he can pull the trigger.

Rude, perhaps, and I do think it’s sometimes counterproductive, which is why I myself usually refrain from using the term.

However, those who collect military-grade weaponry because they think one day they will have to join an armed revolt against our government, shooting at and attempting to kill U.S. soldiers and law enforcement officers? Yeah, I’d say that qualifies as insane.

We need a broad discussion… before a discussion? So, like a pre-discussion appetizer discussion? How about the post-discussion apertif? I’m trying to parse her statements but they sound like a Sarah Palin word salad. Can the empty square states each give up a senator please?

Why waste your time ranting about this woman? She barely won in a state with only 700,000 people. Deviating from the Official NRA line would guarantee she’s a 1-term senator. I don’t see it happening, not even if there is another massacre somewhere.

Let me add something y’all might not know. People concerned with gun rights see the issue almost identically to the way the pro-choice people do. Not only on an emotional level but on a political one.

If the tables were turned and this were a big nation kerfluffle about abortion no one here would be stupid enough to dialogue or compromise with the anti-choice people.

if you gave them second trimester, they’d come after the first and sooner or later despite all pledges to the contrary , after birth control. And yeah they’d claim otherwise but they’ve made plenty of noise in that direction already and they can’t be trusted.

The same thing comes with guns, they’ve seen many an article wanting more restrictions, calling for confiscation and so on. More importantly they’ve seen, despite low gun crime rates the UK and Australian governments get registration than confiscation.

Despite what some might think, gun owners are as smart as anyone else. They know they’ll be knifed sooner than later and as such they won’t obey anymore than a woman who could find a back alley abortion doctor or smuggled condoms or pills would.

Calming the stress that’s selling 16 million guns per year (oh and billions of rounds of ammo) requires good management, a real effort for say the Democrats to go after graft and corruption to create conditions for good private sector jobs and to not pick stupid fights.

Do this and gun sales will drop. Find some way to get everybody on the same page, fix racial and cultural issues so that we can all be American and you might even get people to stop wanting guns and change the culture.

That the long haul approach, the right one and the best one. Try and do it Chicago style with graft and force and the legitimacy of a Congress around that of Ebola and you risk blowback we can ill afford.

Yes, the overwhelming majority of “mentally ill” persons are completely harmless. So are the overwhelming majority of gun owners. Both are likely to be considered as threatening by a whole bunch of people, but “threatening” is not the same thing as “harmful”, unless you’re in the National Security business.

That aside, it would not be overwhelmingly difficult to establish a list of mental health diagnoses that disqualify a person from being able to own a firearm. Sociopath? Psychopath? Bipolar? Multiple personality disorder? Clinically depressed? No gun for you!

The Democratic parties habit of exploiting the rare tragedies lie the death of pretty White children for its gun control agenda and of ignoring the truth that almost all US gun violence is caused by felonious minority criminals in the gangs or the drug trade shooting each other is arguably their worst habit.

Its basically sleazy since no one rightly cares if two drug dealers die but boy howdy do little blond kids get em rilled up. It feel racist to me as well.

And note “lets have a dialogue” is a stupid statement on its face. Why should anyone talk if the other side is not acting in good faith. If gun control proponents aren’t giving something back, not taking less but actually giving gun people something they want, more than already they have its a one way discussion.

If you can’t do this or have nothing to offer, they have no reason to dialog with you.

Indeed, America is a sociopath and elected a President who can actually cry real human tears over the deaths of twenty plus children mowed down, but seems to have no problem with targeted assassinations or the collateral deaths of a thousand villagers or so.

2) Possession of unregistered guns prosecuted and sentenced on same basis as hard drugs today.,

3) All weapons that permit rapid fire banned completely.

4) All weapons with a capacity of more than 8 shots banned completely.

I cannot see a rational reason for opposing any of those. Anyone who hunts with a rapid fire weapon is no sportsman and anyone who needs 100 bullets to shoot anything is a rotten shot.

The current legislation has been sabotaged by NRA supporters, it is designed not to work. They then argue that the ineffectiveness of the legislation is reason not to fix it. Come on, if closing the gun show loophole was not going to have an effect there would be no problem closing it.

Please define what you mean by “sensible gun control legislation”. We already have tons of laws on the books and none of those laws has prevented even one shooting. Im all for gun control legislation and fully support every law already in place. More laws are not the answer.

Absolutism…sounds an awful lot like “Forget the assault weapons ban, lets ban guns entirely” point of view of this very site and most of its current posters. You also said “These people are “absolutists” when it comes to guns, and their
political program is absolutism. They brook no room for accommodation
for anyone else’s views.” Wow…how interesting that this seems to be the same exact thing you guys do to anyone with a differing opinion on gun control. As for your view on the First Amendment, you may want to practice what you preach. Additionally, we have the First Amendment in place and what guarantees that Right, along with all the others, is the 2nd.

“These people seem awfully intolerant of other people’s opinions and they
keep waving their guns in my face. I really don’t like that attitude.” Yeah, I know what you mean. If you don’t walk in lock step around here, you get called a “gun nut” or worse. What you really don’t like is that they have an opinion that differs from yours and saying they are “waving a gun” in your face is just theatrical bullshit on your part because you apparently cannot have a reasoned discussion with them because you choose not to. Ive pretty much given up on “discussion” here at AB and thats a shame because Ive been part of this site for years and its sad that my fellow progressives (using the term very loosely at this point) have apparently lost their critical thinking skills and the ability to reason. John has let the wacks take over the posting duties (GP) and soon this place will have zero credibility and be the Townhall or Drudge of the Left.

It’s ironic, isn’t it? She says we should put everything on the table and talk about it… except she wants to exercise a veto over what’s talked about, such that anything resembling a gun control proposal is NOT talked about.

So I guess her definition of talking about ‘everything’ is limited to “do nothing” or “MOAR GUNZ!”

I’m trying to figure out what’s so extreme about the Administration’s proposals that they cannot even be discussed. Reinstate the assault weapons ban — which was easily evaded, it was that weak, but still better than nothing. A ban on oversized clips — how is that too extreme? Universal background checks, including for private sales — don’t the responsible gun owners (of which I believe I am one) WANT guns to be kept out of the hands of crazy people and criminals? I know I do. As ever, I applaud those with kids who use gun safes and trigger locks, who train regularly, and who employ every possible safety measure when out hunting or target shooting. Why is it beyond the realm of reasonable discussion and ‘extreme’ to point out that responsible gun ownership and use is, at this time in America, almost entirely voluntary?

To build upon something MyrddinWilt says below:

They just never want to face up to the fact their lethal toys kill.

– They never want to accept the necessity of practical measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazies. Such as tracking weapons sales and workable background checks that actually deny guns to criminals and crazies.
– They won’t accept any particular limit on the type and capabilities of the guns they want to own, up to and including military-grade weaponry designed solely to kill people, as well as extended clips holding as many as a couple hundred rounds.
– They won’t admit when they talk about having to have military-grade weaponry to ‘water the roots of the tree of liberty with blood’, they are in fact talking treason and of an intent to kill the U.S. troops they so often claim to love and support.

Seriously: If a discussion about whether there ought to be a maximum clip size is too extreme even to be discussed, that it must be shouted down, it says to all of us that there is no good-faith discussion or negotiation going on here. Just a demand for continued capitulation to unnecessary, preventable gun violence.

Or to put it another way, the cost of the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is roughly three 9/11’s each and every year in America.

So, I guess in your opinion, the mental health issues in this country are fine and dandy? Here’s another inconvenient truth for you; in each shooting, a person with a mental illness has committed the act 100% of the time. Ignore the mental health issue all you want as its much easier to blame a gun than the person responsible for the act itself. Not a single one of you guys that supports gun control has ever realized that.

Agreed. They always talk about defending against “tyranny,” but as with any type of revolutionary thought, one man’s tyranny is another man’s single-payer healthcare system. One man’s tyranny is another man’s sensible gun control legislation. And so on. Who is it that gets to arbitrarily make that determination in everyone else’s name?

I’m not sure of the exact words, but the Declaration of Independence said something to the effect that such an extreme act should never be carried out for “light and transient” reasons. It should take more than “the election didn’t go the way I wanted it to” or “I oppose this or that legislation.”

This battle, unfortunately, will be fought out with rhetoric and invective, not reason. Frau Heitkamp shrewdly wields a term that has been shown repeatedly to poll with negative connotations: “extreme”. It was, you will remember, Al Gore’s mantra, although it didn’t quite go the distance for him. I suggest an antidote: These people are “absolutists” when it comes to guns, and their political program is absolutism. They brook no room for accommodation for anyone else’s views. They want to shut off and shut down any rational debate — perhaps at the point of a gun. It needs to be pointed out that the first liberty protected by the Bill of Rights is speech, not bearing arms. So tar them with a pejorative label. Force them to explain why it should not apply to them and define them out of the room where adult conversation takes place.

“that’s way, way in extreme of what I think is necessary or even should be talked about.”

Heitkamp does not want these things talked about and Hovey doesn’t think Giffords should be allowed to come visit ‘her’ towns.

These people seem awfully intolerant of other people’s opinions and they keep waving their guns in my face. I really don’t like that attitude.

Accepting the rule of law has to be the precondition for any debate. If people say they won’t obey the law on guns then that by itself makes them a gun nut, unfit to hold one. They never want to hold a debate on guns after a shooting and they never want to hold one when there isn’t a shooting. They just never want to face up to the fact that their lethal toys kill.

President Bush (the one who was elected by the people) resigned from the NRA because it had become an extremist organization whose leader referred to secret service agents as ‘jack booted thugs’. These are the people who think that we should not call them ‘nuts’ when they run around with guns claiming to be protecting the constitution.

Thing is that the people who wave guns about are almost never the typs of people who believe in the types of liberty I do. They tend to be the people who think that electing a black president is an infringement of their liberty, that same sex marriage is an infringement or their liberty or universal healthcare and the list goes on. In short they tend to be the type of people who object to the outcome of the democratic process and want to take up arms against it rather than the typs of people who would defend it.

She’s from North Dakota. What do you expect? You can fire a gun in most of the state in any direction and not hit anything. Most places there aren’t even any trees. She represents about as many people as live on Staten Island. She has a learning curve ahead of her. In the meantime, she’s going to be who she is. Outvote her.

Yes. It would be too extreme to consider how guns are sold in America but not too extreme to register and regulate the “mentally ill”, the overwhelming majority of which are completely harmless. This dodges the problem (guns) and victimizes an already tragic minority. Set aside the fact that the term “mentally ill” is poorly defined in any legal sense. Do we need to register everyone on Prozac?